Re: [RRG] On identifiers, was: Re: Does every host need a FQDN

[Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>]

On Aug 14, 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> We need to be realistic and recognize that fixing the API isn't going
> to do anything to solve the current routing scalability problem.


Iljitsch,

you are right that the RRG is, in fact, looking at two problems:

- the routing scalability problem

- the convolution between locators and identifiers in host stacks

But: You are arguing that (1) solving the second isn't worthwhile (2)
because it would fail to help solving the first.  I don't quite agree
on either of these arguments.

Regarding (1):  Improving the API would have the following benefits:

- easier application programming
- clean separation of identifiers and locators, hence simpler mobility
  and multi-homing support
- easier NAT traversal
- less complex network renumbering because applications are unaffected

Hence I believe a new API would be worthwhile.

Regarding (2):  A new API may be a building block in a new routing
architecture.  Since a new API would make renumbering easier as noted
above, it may facilitate the wide class of routing scalability
solutions that require edge network renumbering on provider changes.

- Christian



--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg